Thanks Jim, sounds good, utility then. My point being that even if I was able to see them it would just be a bonus, something fun to talk about - yes something extra added to my life in terms of utility or fun. But it will not make any difference to my completeness, same goes with any other siddhis. They are ultimately all material.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7" <whynotnow7@...> wrote: > > "I don't see Angels, nor I do believe in them - but certainly can see the > possibility that a certain refined nervous system can see the angles and > other celestial being around them. However there is no salvation outside of > you, so this is all optional entertainment really." > > Perhaps at first the experience would be unsettling, however the experience > of the celestial worlds is sufficiently subtle to be only perceived when > there is not any sort of excitement or expectation in the mind. So it becomes > a normal extension of the senses that is rarely used or thought about. Only > useful if needed, not entertainment ever.:-) > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ravi Yogi" <raviyogi@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Denise Evans <dmevans365@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Hey there "nit-wit", you are beginning to sound like Ravi "pimp" > > "whore" Yogi. Â > > > > > Err..Denise, pardon me, but that would be Ravi "The Lover" Yogi and no > > nitwit can sound like the narcissistic, manic depressive, low vibe, > > slimeball enlightened asshole like me. > > I don't see Angels, nor I do believe in them - but certainly can see the > > possibility that a certain refined nervous system can see the angles and > > other celestial being around them. However there is no salvation outside > > of you, so this is all optional entertainment really. > > > > > I have a few questions for you about angels, as I am seeing someone > > who is healing my spiritual grid and the angels are helping, according > > to her. Â I'm one of those unfortunate ones who can't "see" anything > > in this lifetime. Â Maybe next time 'round. Â Are angels > > unconditional and is there salvation for us sinners? Â I'm assuming > > the answer is "yes", but having also been told I'm a "perpetrator" in > > this life, I worry about condemnation...although less and less. > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > > Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2011 7:01 AM > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: "You don't believe what we believe, > > therefore you hate it...and us" > > > > > > > > > Â > > > You just proved my point. Now, run along kiddie and play in your > > selective memory some more. I won't push your buttons anymore, though > > you are challenged to find mine. And while we're at it, even though you > > make a big pretense of not reading my posts, you eat up every word with > > a spoon don't you? To the point of trying to borrow the ideas I express. > > I didn't use to call you "Bozotronic Barry" for nothing, you nit-wit. > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7" <whynotnow7@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The states of mind you describe below are almost as retarded > > > > > as yours, "If you are self-realized, you think you are better > > > > > than me". > > > > > > > > Ahem. This is too good a setup to pass up. Might I cite > > > > a quotation from the same self-announced self realized > > > > person who wrote the above, posted *by him* less than > > > > 24 hours ago: > > > > > > > > "The angels, gods and saints I have directed [sic] > > > > interacted with are a lot more real than either of > > > > you, but please, continue with your fantasy! A dull > > > > nervous system doesn't have the ability of refined > > > > perception and so cannot see the lifeforms all > > > > around us. Maybe next life? and believe me I am > > > > being generous with you two nit-wits." > > > > > > > > No "thinking I'm better than others" there, nope. :-) > > > > > > > > The fascinating thing is that Jimbo really doesn't > > > > *remember* being as arrogant and elitist and as > > > > condescending as he was less than a day ago when > > > > he wrote this. In his case, "being in the now" > > > > seems to mean "I can't remember what *I* said > > > > yesterday." > > > > > > > > Jim, you *DO* think that you're better than us. > > > > Anyone who doesn't believe in the same fairy tales > > > > you do has, *according to you*, a "dull nervous > > > > system," and is a "nit-wit." > > > > > > > > I don't think that you can find a single person > > > > on this forum who doesn't believe this about you. > > > > It "comes through" in almost every post you write. > > > > How we were always able to tell it was you back > > > > when you were pretending to be someone else? > > > > > > > > Why is it that you are unable to see what is so > > > > apparent to everyone else? Is being that totally > > > > self-unaware a part of being what you call self- > > > > realization? If so, why do you believe that anyone > > > > would want to "achieve" it? > > > > > > > > Now prove how unattached to your own "fictional > > > > stories" and the image you try to project of being > > > > enlightened (and thus unattached and "above" get- > > > > ting your buttons pushed) by responding to this > > > > post and any others I make this week with a series > > > > of putdowns. That is your normal pattern on this > > > > forum, and yes, I'm taunting you to repeat it. I'm > > > > even telling you about it *in advance* because > > > > I know that you're powerless to stop it. I'm > > > > merely doing what I have said in the past that > > > > I do -- predicting what your behavior will be, > > > > and then allowing you the opportunity to prove > > > > me correct. My bet is that you cannot help but > > > > do so. > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > There are a couple of threads going on recently, both involving > > > > > > Curtis, that I think are revelatory about the state of mind of > > > > > > many FFL members. Although I've only skimmed the first few para- > > > > > > graphs of each, it seems to me that the anti-Curtis participants > > > > > > are trying to make the same case (see Subject line). > > > > > > > > > > > > In one, someone is trying to make the case that because Curtis > > > > > > feels free to mock the concept of God and/or deliver unto Him > > > > > > the blame for all the Bad Stuff even believers in Him admit > > > > > > He's responsible for, that means he "hates" God. > > > > > > > > > > > > Bzzzzzzzt. Does not compute. This line of unreasoning is as > > > > > > stupid as someone who believes that Porky Pig is God saying > > > > > > that someone who pokes fun at Porky Pig "hates" him. PORKY > > > > > > PIG DOES NOT EXIST. He's a fictional character. For > > > > > > those of us who are non-believers in God, is God. How can > > > > > > someone who doesn't believe that God EXISTS "hate" Him? > > > > > > This is just so stupid I don't see how anyone could possibly > > > > > > propose such an idiotic argument. > > > > > > > > > > > > In the other thread, someone who is heavily attached to the > > > > > > word-for-word parroted dogma taught to her by Maharishi and > > > > > > his minions is claiming that because Vaj not only *isn't* > > > > > > attached to it but feels free to use his own mind and his > > > > > > own much broader experience with spiritual pursuits to come > > > > > > up with more exact descriptions of TM and what it entails, > > > > > > he was never a TM teacher. The anti-Vaj person also tries > > > > > > -- often -- to claim that Vaj "hates" Maharishi and TM and > > > > > > TMers, and is saying what he says out of malice, and with > > > > > > nefarious intent. > > > > > > > > > > > > Bzzzzzt. I don't really see it that way. What I see *in > > > > > > both cases* is people who are heavily invested in and attached > > > > > > to a set of beliefs indulging in 1) projection of their own > > > > > > emotions (projecting their own hatred onto others), and 2) > > > > > > protection of their own self importance (I believe in this > > > > > > stuff, therefore it's true). > > > > > > > > > > > > What does it MATTER if Curtis doesn't believe in God and > > > > > > you do? His beliefs don't affect you in any way. The fact > > > > > > that he occasionally pokes hilarious fun at a *made-up > > > > > > concept* shouldn't really affect you at all. But it DOES. > > > > > > So much so that you leave all sense of reason behind and > > > > > > suggest that he "hates" the made-up concept. WTF? Please > > > > > > take your Porky Pig-ism back to the spiritual kindergarten > > > > > > you learned it in and get a checking. > > > > > > > > > > > > W.r.t Vaj, the fact that you are still so terrified of > > > > > > saying something that isn't in the approved catechism of > > > > > > TM dogma *does not mean* that Vaj should be or has to be > > > > > > similarly terrified. He has learned something you have not, > > > > > > the ability to think for himself. You suggesting that this > > > > > > is a sin merely reveals how strongly you believe that > > > > > > thinking for yourself IS a sin. > > > > > > > > > > > > From my point of view, Curtis "hates God" no more than Vaj > > > > > > "hates Maharishi or TMers." They merely poke fun at things > > > > > > that more than deserve to be made fun of, sometimes indulging > > > > > > in hyperbole to do so. This hyperbole pushes the attachment > > > > > > buttons of the True Believers, who then react by parroting > > > > > > *another* piece of dogma that they've been taught, the phrase > > > > > > in the Subject line of this post. > > > > > > > > > > > > It's embarrassing. If you had half a clue, you'd be as > > > > > > embarrassed saying this stuff you say as some of us are > > > > > > watching you say it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
